| Revision as of 15:03, 6 October 2019 editSignimu (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,692 edits →Reason for divergence?: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:38, 11 January 2025 edit undoZefr (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers69,483 edits →A cup of coffee for you!: ok, thanksTag: Manual revert |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
== MEDRS tutorials for new medical editors == |
|
== MEDRS tutorials for medical editors == |
|
]]] |
|
]]] |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
⚫ |
* |
|
⚫ |
* |
|
|
* |
|
⚫ |
* |
|
⚫ |
*]: Useful Misplaced Pages tips for editing medical and general content |
|
|
*]: Manual of style and guide for templated medical source |
|
⚫ |
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{clear}} |
| ⚫ |
|
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
|
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
|
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
|
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
]: Useful Misplaced Pages tips for editing medical and general content |
|
|
|
|
|
== Insomnia treatment == |
|
|
|
|
|
Could you please provide further reasoning as to the unreliability of the sources concerned with the clinical review of acupuncture and hypnotherapy in the treatment of insomnia, as well as further reasoning as to the low value of such reviews in comparison with the reviews of the other treatment approaches listed in ]? Thanks. ] (]) 11:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:Hello. The issue is treatment of ], a medical topic requiring high-quality medical sources, as described in ]. All the sources below used in your edit are from ] practices not based in science.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Ernst E, Lee MS, Choi TY | title = Acupuncture for insomnia? An overview of systematic reviews | journal = The European Journal of General Practice | volume = 17 | issue = 2 | pages = 116–23 | date = June 2011 | pmid = 21463162 | pmc = | doi = 10.3109/13814788.2011.568475 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Shergis JL, Ni X, Jackson ML, Zhang AL, Guo X, Li Y, Lu C, Xue CC | title = A systematic review of acupuncture for sleep quality in people with insomnia | journal = Complementary Therapies in Medicine | volume = 26 | pages = 11–20 | date = June 2016 | pmid = 27261976 | doi = 10.1016/j.ctim.2016.02.007 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=O_cEAAAACAAJ |title=The pregnant man: tales from a hypnotherapist's couch |author=Deirdre Barrett |location=New York |publisher=Times Books |isbn=9780812929058 |year=1998 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lam |first1=Tak-Ho |last2=Chung |first2=Ka-Fai | last3=Yeung | first3=Wing-Fai | last4=Yee-Man Yu | first4=Branda | last5=Yung | first5=Kam-Ping | last6=Ho-Yee Ng | first6=Tommy | date=October 2015 |title=Hypnotherapy for insomnia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0965229915001247 |journal=Complementary Therapies in Medicine |volume=23 |issue=5 |pages=719-732 |doi=10.1016/j.ctim.2015.07.011 |access-date=October 2, 2019 }}</ref> |
|
|
*The European Journal of General Practice has a low ] of 1.6; Misplaced Pages medical content relies on high impact factor sources, typically well above 2.0 |
|
|
*Complementary Therapies in Medicine has an IF of 1.9 |
|
|
*] is ] |
|
|
The sources and quackery-based content do not meet the standards of an encyclopedia; see ]. --] (]) 14:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reason for divergence? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Zefr, I'm wondering if maybe our divergences might not be rooted in a difference in how we perceive how articles should be edited: I think (and I'm probably not the only one) that a gradual increase in quality is acceptable, eg, for an article where there is mostly animal studies, removing to replace with human primary studies is already an enhancement, or placing reviews without detailing the content (because the editor is not an expert or does not have the time to dig) is good for future editors so that they can expand. But it fell on me that maybe you could expect edits to always meet the highest quality standard, whatever the current state or quality of the article. Is my intuition correct? I am not making any judgement, I can understand this viewpoint, it's just that I did not think of it and I'm trying to better understand your editing process to better collaborate :-) --] (]) 15:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC) |
|